[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 123456789 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 14:32
Author: Anon - 29 Jul 2001
Subject: Re: high living on others' heartfelt donations
In reply to: ket5ch - 28 Jul 2001 's message, "Re: high living on others' heartfelt donations" on 14:30

It’s nice for you, Ketch, that you “see nothing wrong with that”. However, ethical people in leading roles are usually expected to avoid doing what gives the “appearance of” impropriety. The question turns on “appearance of”. A renunciant found living cushy gives the appearance of a questionable situation.

Ketch, you commented:“SRF claim she does not live there, but uses the accommodation occasionally. I do not see anything wrong with this.”

Ketch, why you would make such a comment? To the contrary, what SRF actually says (quoted below) is that she’s been there since the 1960’s and that they bought the “residential building” (i.e., house) next door for nuns who work with her.* I read the “periods of seclusion” as those periods when she’s not in the desert or traveling. You apparently read the meaning of “periods” as infrequent occasional periods. Well, if Daya & Mrinilini are only there rarely, SRF certaintly wouldn’t need a resident support staff of nuns in the expensive house next door. Your reading is probably incorrect.

Once again, Ketch, please, exercise care when you make statements, so as to not increase confusion. Try for honest clarity on a really good discussion board such as this. There are already too many confusing things issuing from my SRF, such as altered spelling of names, altered photos, grave alterations in Master’s holy writings, names bestowed by Master on monastics being altered by Daya, expensive public campaigns begun then subsequently expensively reversed, questionable delays of writings Master tried to get published in the early 1950's still delayed for Daya's continued editing, and more. SRF is about disseminating & preserving the purity for the future ages of Master’s teachings and Kriya. It’s not about recruitment into that politically correct, almost medieval liege / vassal mindset that appears prevalent among the monks & devotees around the temples in exhalting Daya. It’s a corruption to make her a focal point.

FOLLOWING IS FROM http://www.yogananda-srf.org/srf_news/sanghamata.html :
…beginning in the late 1960’s Daya Mataji was encouraged to make use of a property SRF had acquired, to enable her to have periods of uninterrupted seclusion in which to concentrate exclusively on those essential projects. (Two years ago SRF purchased a second residential building adjacent to it, as there was a need to house nuns who could assist Daya Mata with her projects and other work.)…

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]


Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.